As long as it's not a nikkor 'G' lens, they're stuck wide-open using an adapter

adapter with aperature control available - expensive. possible since diaphragm is mechanically actuated

Ooh, looks good, although damned expensive.Just gotta wait a while until china picks it up and makes their own for $20.would be very nice on some lenses, most new nikkors are 'G', look at the performance difference of their 85/1.4 G and non-G, the 'G' beats the samyang and sigma versions easily.

I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?

Tha lack of IS is very much in my mind. I love to stand out in the foggy night and take pictures. And then i could definatly need an IS. Thats because the shutter speed in the night would be slower than 1/60 of a second

The shutter speed should be 1/Focal Length and not 1/60. Hence you're ok with 1/16 - that's why this lens, and generally the WA and UWA doesn't have IS.

I don't think i've ever been really 'lacking' IS at a focal length that short?

Tha lack of IS is very much in my mind. I love to stand out in the foggy night and take pictures. And then i could definatly need an IS. Thats because the shutter speed in the night would be slower than 1/60 of a second

The shutter speed should be 1/Focal Length and not 1/60. Hence you're ok with 1/16 - that's why this lens, and generally the WA and UWA doesn't have IS.

HTH

That is how i was taught.

Obviously 1/(Focal length*1.6) for APSC

Logged

aldvan

It's just less simpler than the old '1/Focal Length' formula. Long telse and long zooms are very heavy and, obviously, 'long'...So, focal length geometry apart, it's more difficult a steady grip on those than on a WA zoom, that is bulky but shorter and lighter than a tele... 1/8" is a shutter time that anybody without essential tremor can easily stand...

I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO

To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8. Yes 2.8 on an UWA does have its uses but they seem much more limated to me than on normal or tele lenses and not worth the extra cost, weight and potentially flare. An f/4 lens also seems like it would balance the market better for Canon, the 17-40 as the cheap UWA, the 16-35 2.8 and 14 2.8 as the fast ones and the 12-24 as the widest.

I wonder whethert we'll see Pentax's idea of drop in lens barrel filters from the 25mm 645 feature in any more "bulb" UWA's? obviously it won't give quite the versatility of a filter system but would cut down on the fuss greatly for shots where you only need an ND or a polarizer. Is a zoom lens just going to be too complex for something like that?

The one thing with any wide angle, zoom or prime, is that the closer you can between the last element and the sensor the better. I'm not sure how the Pentax works (i'll look for images once i've posted this), but if i were a lens designer i'd be putting the filter between the last few elements, whether the distance needed for that makes the design impossible I don't know..But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...

But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...

With an UWA I find the main use for a polarizer is taking reflections off of the foreground with little or no sky in the frame.

If they could come up with a drop in system I spose theres no reason they couldnt create grads aswell, they'd be fixed but still useful in many situations.

Really going into fantasy land perhaps some kind of built in shifting grad system you could shift up and down in the barrel? I'm actually supprized that no manifacturer has tried that in a compact body yet ala the built in ND's and marketed it as a "landscape master".

To me a 12-24 f/4 with better sharpness would have much more appeal than an 14-24 2.8.

Agreed. There are many Nikon 14-24s for sale and almost invariably the seller says - too heavy, too big, no filters ...

You'll always find people that don't like a certain lens. I for one have been waiting for Canon to finally release a 14-24 f2.8 for a long time.

That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?

That might be an interesting poll - how much does size/weight factor into buying decisions [assuming cost doesn't figure into it, e.g. the 2.8 lens is pricier than the 4]? I've read many people say they are put off by the size/weight of this or that lens - like your 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. Obviously not a problem for you, but for others?

For me, not at all - at least for 'normal' lenses. It is a consideration for me when comparing the 100-400mm with the 500mm f/4L IS, for example - I tend to hike longish distances when shooting wildlife, and carrying the 500/4 is not so easy (in fact, that might make the weight reduction with the MkII worth the $3K price increase). But personally, I have no problem carrying around a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 - I do that routinely for much of the day. Given that, the difference between a 17-40/4 and a hypothetical 14-24/2.8, or between a 24-105/4 and a 24-70/2.8, is not an issue.